UP Law F2021 098 PLM v.

IAC
Public Officers The Civil Service - Appointments 1985 Gutierrez

SUMMARY
Esteban was extended an “ad interim” appointment by the PLM president and was issued several
notices of extension of his temporary appointment for a few years. His appointment was terminated.
The Court ruled that the nature of his appointment is permanent because the ad interim appointment
issued by the President was confirmed by the Board of Regents regardless of the notices that refer to
his appointment as temporary. He is thus entitled to security of tenure and may only be removed for
cause which was absent in this case.

FACTS
 Dr. Esteban had been a permanent employee in the government service for 25 years
 May 1973 – he became the VP for Academic Affairs of the Philippine College of Commerce
o Prior to this, PCC’s Board of Trustees resolved to abolish the VPAA position to
streamline the college organization
o Esteban was given the option to continue teaching in PCC which he accepted until his
transfer to PLM upon the invitation of its president, Dr. Blanco
 In PLM, Esteban was extended an ad interim temporary appointment as VP for Administration
by Blanco
o He received a series of “Notification of Confirmation of Temporary appointment”
from the University Secretary in the next few years effective on the following dates:
 May 21, 1973-June 30, 1973
 July 1-August 31, 1974
 Sept. 1, 1974-June 30, 1975
 July 1, 1975-June 30, 1976
 His salary by then is P21,276/annum
 July 1975 – Esteban discovered that he is not included in the list of employees recommended for
permanent appointments
o He wrote to Blanco requesting the conversion of his temporary appointment into a
permanent one considering his 2 ½ years in service
 August 1975 – Esteban received a “Notification of Ad Interim Appointment” notifying him
that the president had approved his appointment as Professor III with a salary of P15,600 per
annum effective August 1, 1975
o He was also designated as Director of the Institute of Continuing Education and
Community Service with a P5,676 per annum honorarium effective on the same day
 August 7 – Blanco issued a memorandum circular terminating Esteban’s appointment as VP for
Administration effective July 31, 1975
o His appointment which was supposed to be effective until June 30, 1976 was withdrawn
before it could be confirmed by the BOR
 Esteban appealed to the CSC for the protection of his tenure in PLM
o CSC ruled that his appointment as VP for Administration is merely temporary and as
such, his services may be terminated anytime without just cause.
 Moreover, the conversion of his appointment into a permanent one is in the
sound discretion of the appointing official
 Upon MR, CSC ruled favorably on Esteban’s motion
o CSC said that he was fully qualified for the VP for Administration position and certified
him “for appointment therein under permanent status”1
1
"In view thereof, and in the absence of any apparent justifiable reason why Dr. Esteban should remain under
temporary status for the length of time prior to the withdrawal of his appointment as Vice President for Administration
in that University, and as it further appears that he is fully qualified for the position in question in view of his extensive
experience in the fields of public administration and management, this Commission hereby certifies him for
  PLM asked for reconsideration
o The CSC in an undated Resolution No. 75 s. 1976 came out with a confusing statement
saying that its certification should be interpreted as directing the reinstatement of
Esteban because ‘it was never intended to be so’
 May 1976 – Esteban asked for reconsideration regarding Resolution No. 75 as well as the
payment of his salaries and allowances as of September 1975 which PLM withheld
o CSC denied his request in an undated resolution No. 158 s. 1976
 September 1976 – Esteban reiterated his request for payment of his salaries and asked CSC to
review PLM’s decision to terminate his appointment as VP for Administration
o CSC referred his request for payment of salaries to the treasurer of PLM
 July 1977 – CSC modified its earlier resolution
o CSC said that Blanco had no authority to extend an ad interim appointment as VP for
Administration to Esteban because only the BOR can do so under Art. 55 of the
University Charter (RA 4196)
o It ruled that as a de facto officer, Esteban was entitled to be paid the salary he was
entitled to
 Both Esteban and PLM filed their MRs of that ruling
 June 1978 – PD 1409 (creating a Merits System Board in the CSC to hear and decide cases on
appeal by officers and employees) was issued
 The Board required PLM to submit its complete records re: Esteban during his VP stint
o PLM records officer submitted copies of several Notices to Estaban but did not submit a
copy of the Board’s Resolution No. 485 confirming ad interim appointments of several
personnel of PLM which included Esteban’s (“effective May 21, 1973”)
 January 1981 – PLM by 2nd Indorsement, in response to CSC’s request to submit any document
pertaining to Esteban’s VPA stint, said that it cannot find any document showing that Esteban
was appointed in a permanent capacity, despite the existence of Resolution No. 485
o As such, the Board ruled that Esteban was appointed as VPA in a permanent capacity
 It cited Gov’t of the Philippine Islands v. Martinez – when a party has in his
possession to produce the best evidence of which the case is susceptible and
withholds it, the fair presumption is that the evidence is withheld for some
sinister move
 Esteban was ruled to have been appointed as VPA with permanent status and
that his temporary appointment did not alter his permanent status since he has
already acquired a vested right and security of tenure
 He cannot be removed without cause
 Thus, the termination of his services is illegal and he is entitled to payment of
back salaries, allowances, and other benefits which he failed to receive
o PLM’s MR was denied
 PLM filed a certiorari petition against Esteban and CSC commissioners Fernandez and Dans
o Trial court reversed CSC’s resolution and adopted its 1977 resolution which held that
Esteban’s appointment, while invalid, was in a de facto capacity up to October 1975 or
when his appointment was terminated
 Esteban appealed to the IAC
o IAC held that Esteban’s appointment was in a permanent capacity and ordered his
reinstatement with backsalaries, allowances, and other benefits (provided he has not
reached the age of retirement)

RATIO
What is the nature of Esteban’s appointment?
PERMANENT.
 PLM confused itself with it use of the word “ad interim”

appointment therein under permanent status."

 o In the context of Philippine law, “ad interim” is not descriptive of the nature of
appointments but rather, denotes the manner in which the appointments were
made
o That is, done by the President of PLM in the meantime while the BOR (which is
originally vested by the Charter with power to appoint) is unable to act
o The use of ad interim in Philippine law is not the same as other jurisdictions which
consider “ad interim” in its literal meaning “in the meantime” or “for the time being
 Esteban was confirmed in Resolution No. 485
o His was a confirmed ad interim appointment
o BOR verified Esteban’s appointment without condition nor limitation as to tenure
o As of June 20, 1973 (promulgation of Resolution No. 485), his appointment became
regular and permanent
 Despite being extended notices of the extension of his temporary appointment, this does not
mean that his permanent appointment was in any way altered
o In case of conflict between a notification issued by the Secretary and the actual
Resolution of the BOR, the latter is controlling
o The Secretary has no authority to alter or add something which is not provided for in
the Resolution
 There is nothing in Resolution No. 485 which suggests that Esteban’s appointment was
temporary
o BOR was supposed to confirm or reject an existing ad interim appointment
o If his appointment was intended to be temporary, it should have been expressly
stated
 Moreover, in the List of Permanent Personnel submitted by PLM to CSC on March 1975,
Esteban’s name was present as a permanent employee (his name was first in the list!)
o CSC recognized his appointment in its 1st Indorsement dated April 1975
 It appears that the intention was to deprive Esteban of his rights as a permanent employee in
view of strained relations and differences in professional opinion with University President
Blanco
o Blanco erringly thought that Esteban’s services were terminable at pleasure
o While the power to appoint is discretionary in essence, the appointing power must
not act in bad faith
 “With the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of faculty members, the
university has spawned a meek, spineless, even subservient corps of
professors and instructors” (Jesus Bigornia, Bulletin Today)
 With Esteban’s appointment now settled as permanent, the Civil Service Law and the
Constitution guarantee his Security of Tenure
o “No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for
cause provided by law” (Art. XII, Sec. 3, 1973 Constitution)
o PLM failed to substantiate its allegations of incompetence against Esteban whose
record of government service is quite impressive
o In fact, the only reason why Esteban was dismissed was due to the “temporary
nature” of his appointment
Other issue:
Award of backpay to Esteban is set at 5 years, which the Court finds just and equitable under the
circumstances (he has been dismissed illegally for more than 10 years by the time this decision was
promulgated)

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision
appealed from subject to the modification in the payment of back salaries is affirmed.